Supplemental reading interventions implemented by paraprofessionals: A meta‐analysis

Preventative and intensive reading intervention can be administered to at‐risk students in a systematic way to help facilitate gains on literacy outcomes. Despite this fact, there are clear barriers to implementation. One solution may be to use paraprofessionals to provide supplemental reading instr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology in the schools Vol. 58; no. 4; pp. 723 - 741
Main Authors: Jones, Brian T., Erchul, William P., Geraghty, Cathleen A.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Hoboken Wiley 01.04.2021
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects:
At risk populations
Decoding
Decoding (Reading)
Effect Size
Instructional Effectiveness
Intensive treatment
Intervention
Learning outcomes
Literacy
Meta-analysis
paraeducators
Paraprofessional Personnel
Paraprofessional School Personnel
Paraprofessionals
Reading
Reading Difficulties
Reading Instruction
reading interventions
Spelling
Supplementary Education
Systematic review
Teaching
ISSN:0033-3085, 1520-6807
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Preventative and intensive reading intervention can be administered to at‐risk students in a systematic way to help facilitate gains on literacy outcomes. Despite this fact, there are clear barriers to implementation. One solution may be to use paraprofessionals to provide supplemental reading instruction. This study employed meta‐analytic procedures to address two questions: (a) what is the overall effectiveness of paraprofessionals as implementers of reading interventions? and (b) in which areas are paraprofessionals most effective? A literature search of research from 2001 to 2017 yielded 76 studies. Nine studies meeting a priori inclusion criteria were coded for demographic information and six common reading outcomes. The mean ES across outcomes was 0.55, and spelling and decoding emerged as areas to inform future research. Although these meta‐analytic findings must be interpreted with caution due to issues of sample size and heterogeneity of variance, involving paraprofessionals as reading interventionists appears to be a highly promising strategy.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ISSN:0033-3085
1520-6807
DOI:10.1002/pits.22427